Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

And in the end, you get back to the crux of the problem. The laws of America originally did allow for personal choice. It is only since our
foundation that the law has restricted, slowly and horribly, the ability of the individual to make these choices. So much so that concepts such as
"caveat emptor", are only given passive consideration in the most abstract and meaningless ways.

Our nation should be ruled by law. But the laws have restricted access to freedom to such a degree that I feel we should be pushing them back. I do
not wish to impose my views on anyone. I only want to be able to conduct my life how i see fit, regardless of how others view it. I just want the
exact same for myself as everyone else: freedom to do what i will, as long as i harm no one else.

As it pertains to this thread, that would mean that licensing is needless. I cannot say that insurance is not, as it protects you and people that you
may harm.

BTW, when i say we "should" follow nature, what i mean is if we did things like build underground, we could reduce energy use. We have the
technology to begin to interact with nature on the wavelength of energy signatures, and nanogenerators would give us a better way to utilize this.
There is just so much that we don't do. Someone mentioned going at it half assed. That seems to be the way we go about making ourselves more
"ecologically friendly".

I do not always stop with the Preamble, I always begin with the Preamble, but nice way of showing how lazy you are at reading, which is actually clear
even without you pretending as if I didn't follow the Preamble with Article I Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights, and I stopped with that,
because my intent was to simply prove that inalienable rights are codified by constitution.

I have never argued that government can't pass laws, and this is precisely what they did with the constitution I linked. Hello! Because the
constitution has primacy, however, any subsequent legislation can not overturn what has been established by constitution. It is simple, but you have
to actually be willing to read Wuk, not just assume.

Further, you constantly subvert the meaning of inalienable by attempting to then claim there is nothing about "any of those constitutions that say
you have the fundamental right to drive" as if that right must be granted before it is a right. Do you even know what inalienable means. I mean I
keep posting the meaning, but clearly you just skim past that language, so do you know what inalienable means?

In Article, Section 1 "pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness" is your first clue that yes I do have a fundamental right to drive. Further
evidence lies in the fact that a licensed driver can have his vehicle towed away without ever being convicted of any crime, yet this towing would
contradict Section 7 of Article I:

SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

How is it then that LEO's can get away with towing a vehicle without due process of law? The answer is that the application of license and
registration is due process of law, and the scheme granted jurisdiction where none existed prior to it. Further, in Hertado v. California, 110 US
516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in, Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60:

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

And of course, the famous Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

or, Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

You can pretend all you want Wuk that you have knowledge of law, but anyone who actually really does, knows just how ignorant of the law you really
are.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
We should be responsible tenants during our time on this earth. Just, if I want to spend it in a high rise apartment in NYC that does not inherently
insult the earth. In fact, urban dwellers have, on average, a smaller ecological footprint and smaller ecological impact than suburban or rural.

Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Having lived in both situations, this runs counter to observation. It could be, of course,
another difference in personal definitions - I think of 'ecological footprint' as an individual's impact on the environment overall, rather than
just the square footage of living space he occupies, and may be erroneous in that assumption. Please correct me if I'm wrong in that, as otherwise
the logic is getting hard to follow.

When I am an 'urban dweller', my impact on the environment is considerably more substantial, as the transport, packaging, and so on of the products
I derive from nature (food, water, etc) is much greater, and so the waste produced by that consumption is likewise far greater.

Just trying to gain an understanding of where this statement derives from.

None of these examples shows where driving a car is a fundamental right. While the constitution protects a person's right to pursue happiness, it
does not guarantee that happiness.

So, you have still failed to show how driving a car is a fundamental right.

Then how would you recommend someone pursue happiness, life, and liberty when they live in a place like Texas, where things are all spread out, it is
hot, and you have to get kids to daycare, bills paid, and still make it to work looking presentable and not completely dripping in sweat? There are
no taxi's and no buses. Often you will have to drive to a town about 50 miles away to see a doctor, as we are limited in the specialists that we
have access to, or that our insurance will cover, in a town of only 30k.

Is requiring licensing not a cruel and unusual impediment to being able to achieve liberty here, where we will have 4+ months of 100+ degree heat
every year?

LOL, we just barely got sidewalks on one of our major streets (where almost all the business are located), that is also a major US highway. Know what
it took to make that happen? 2 elderly people were creamed by a semi while they rode their scooters to the grocery store. It was one of the few good
uses of the Obama Stimulus Package that i have seen, honestly. But regardless, the point is that it is not feasible to claim that driving is not an
act of traveling freely, which is an inalienable right.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
We should be responsible tenants during our time on this earth. Just, if I want to spend it in a high rise apartment in NYC that does not inherently
insult the earth. In fact, urban dwellers have, on average, a smaller ecological footprint and smaller ecological impact than suburban or rural.

Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Having lived in both situations, this runs counter to observation. It could be, of course,
another difference in personal definitions - I think of 'ecological footprint' as an individual's impact on the environment overall, rather than
just the square footage of living space he occupies, and may be erroneous in that assumption. Please correct me if I'm wrong in that, as otherwise
the logic is getting hard to follow.

When I am an 'urban dweller', my impact on the environment is considerably more substantial, as the transport, packaging, and so on of the products
I derive from nature (food, water, etc) is much greater, and so the waste produced by that consumption is likewise far greater.

Just trying to gain an understanding of where this statement derives from.

[edit on 2010/6/27 by nenothtu]

My apologies. I should have sourced it when I stated it.

BTW: I was quite taken aback when I stumbled across it so I understand wishing to read it.

Well, if you can't find liberty in Texas, you obviously are doing something WRONG.

Does the constitution guarantee you the right to show up at work not dripping in sweat? No.

Does the constitution guarantee you the right to not have to work 50 miles away from your home? No.

Does Texas guarantee that every ass [snip] can get a drivers license so they can go to Colorado just to swerve off of the side of the road into a
canyon to their death, because in Texas there are no such things as curves? Apparently.

As far as your question, I have no freaking idea what you do, sorry, but I just don't see driving as a guaranteed right. I wish it was, but it's a
state issue, each state has the 10th amendment right to make their own rules, In Texas apparently you can get a drivers license if you are able to
show up at the DMV. I'm not sure, but it seems that way from the drivers from Texas I have encountered.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further evidence lies in the fact that a licensed driver can have his vehicle towed away without ever being convicted of any crime, yet this towing
would contradict Section 7 of Article I:

Please clarify what you mean by "having his vehicle towed away with ever being convicted of any crime." Do you mean just taken, as in an officer
can come to your home and *take* it? Or, do you mean when you are arrested and the officer tows your car [prior to an actual conviction]?

In the former, you would be wrong. In the latter, the vehicle is either a component of the crime and it is impounded pending adjudication, or it is
towed off a public roadway for safety and liability sake, in which case it not impounded but removed for safe storage and the party does not need to
await adjudication of their case.

The police cannot leave anyone's vehicle on the side of the road exposed to misadventure from man or nature once that person has been removed from
control of said vehicle. IOW: If it were stolen or whatnot, the police would be responsible because they didn't exercise due diligence to ensure
your property's safety.

Does the constitution guarantee you the right to show up at work not dripping in sweat? No.

Does the constitution guarantee you the right to not have to work 50 miles away from your home? No.

You misunderstand the purpose of the constitution and in specific the bill of rights. It's purpose is not to define your rights. It is a document
asserting rights and limitations of the assertion of rights that the "Government" may employ against those who fall under it's jurisdiction.

i.e.

Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is not telling you that you have a right to free speech it is specifying that congress shall make no law...

Nope, you haven't figured it out, and obviously either did not watch the video, or ignored it in order to reach the conclusion you did. If you want
to control other people Wuk, then be honest about it, and stop pretending that those who resist your ambitions to control them don't want anything to
do with society. Society is not about controlling other people, it is about co-operation.

Thank you, Jean Paul, very well said. Being Freemen and living in a Free Society is not rejecting society in any case whatsoever, it is actually
forming a perfect society, where all are equal, and every transaction is contractual, and all contracts are treated with honor. Where the only crimes
are not keeping a contract, or harming another individual, or anyone's personal property. A society where a Man/Woman is a Sovereign, living in a
Sovereign Republic, a King, Queen in one's castle.

It's freaking anarchy, your just sugar coating it. That's all this is. We all know that anarchy does not work. This is why Hammurabi came up with
his original laws. Cause anarchy does not work, it has NEVER worked.

Sure you might be cool, but some dick is going to come along and take what he wants from you and if you aren't strong enough to defend yourself they
will take from you. In your anarchist society there would be nothing you can do about it because anarchy rejects things like cops and laws and
punishment.

Your opinions on Texas drivers aside, the constitution does guarantee that you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the
current world, that would include free right to travel, just as much as it did before.

To disallow me from this travel could cause me to lose my job, would would harm the nation as well as my own life, liberty, and happiness.

edit to add: in my previous question, i asked about how we can fit the outrage over Saudi women having to fight for the "right to drive" in their
own nation. If driving is not a right, then it would stand to reason that these women may not have much to complain about.

Cool, now show me where they can't make a law requiring you to get a drivers license.

I want specifically a drivers license, car, vehicle. Not transit or travel, because you can travel freely without a car.

You still don't understand. The question should be "show me where they have the authority and jurisdiction to...". I think that is the nature of
this debate.

However the logic that some impose to counter the arguments made by some in this thread that you don't have a "right" to something unless it's in
the constitution can clearly be identified as incorrect just by reading the document.

It's freaking anarchy, your just sugar coating it. That's all this is. We all know that anarchy does not work. This is why Hammurabi came up with
his original laws. Cause anarchy does not work, it has NEVER worked.

Sure you might be cool, but some dick is going to come along and take what he wants from you and if you aren't strong enough to defend yourself they
will take from you. In your anarchist society there would be nothing you can do about it because anarchy rejects things like cops and laws and
punishment.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]

Wuk, you are ignoring large portions of what is being said. If you harm someone, you have the right to be compensated appropriately. You shouldn't
have to defend your property. You SHOULD have the right to act in any manner you see fit, so long as it does no harm (i.e., does not infringe on
their rights, or cause a loss of property, or other undue loss).

And your last post to Harvib....you DO understand that it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution what the people can do. It only talks about what
the government cannot do. Anything that is not limited, is a right. So i would challenge you where in the constitution is states that the right to
free travel (via any method) is in any way restricted. That is how the constitution works. If you disagree, find where the right is restricted
constitutionally.

edit to add: in my previous question, i asked about how we can fit the outrage over Saudi women having to fight for the "right to drive" in their
own nation. If driving is not a right, then it would stand to reason that these women may not have much to complain about.

Apples and Oranges. In the US, all persons of "legal age" *start* with an equal right to obtain a legal driver's license. Disqualifications start
from that point. People who cannot physically manage the controls and do not have a retrofitted vehicle to pass the driver's proficiency practical
exam would be denied. People who could not pass the minimum eyesight standards would be denied. People who demonstrated that they didn't know how
to drive by a set of standardized criteria would be denied. Etc.

But we all start on a presumed equal playing field.

In Saudi Arabia women are summarily excluded. They have NO "starting point" from which to then demonstrate they do not qualify to legally drive.
They had no mechanism within the system to *remediate* their "deficiencies" because their very gender is deemed their "deficiency."

You certainly have the right to free travel, doesn't mean that you have the right to drive a car. After all, you have your feet.

What should the government do? Give you a free car? Perhaps hire drivers for everyone?

As for the larger argument, this idea about anarchy being the bees knees, it's all bull.

So someone comes in and kills you, your families only recourse is to sue them, but without police to arrest those people, how in the HELL are you
going to get them to a court room in order to face the trial?

It's freaking anarchy, your just sugar coating it. That's all this is. We all know that anarchy does not work. This is why Hammurabi came up with
his original laws. Cause anarchy does not work, it has NEVER worked. [edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]

Sorry friend, but in such a society as I speak of, anarchy could not stand. We would all be members of the Freeman Society. Research "society" for
the true meaning of the word. They, lawyers, judges, police, politicians all belong to the "Law Society." You do not belong, in fact, you have no
society to protect you from the wrath of the Law Society.

That being said, it would be a society of laws, much like things are right now, except law in now in the hands of the people, and not just the
government. Every transaction is a legal, binding contract. If one party refuses to keep his/her end of the contract, a remedy can easily be had in a
Court Of Common Law, in your county, convened by your county sheriff.
Failing that, if one party goes to another State, the UCC lien can be used for remedy. How can this be anarchy? I think you just need to educate your
self on these matters, before making such assumptions, agreed?

"If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.... If we are to guard against
ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."-- Thomas Jefferson to Col. Yancey, 1816

None of these examples shows where driving a car is a fundamental right. While the constitution protects a person's right to pursue happiness, it
does not guarantee that happiness. So, you have still failed to show how driving a car is a fundamental right.

And once again you have miserably failed to represent law. This is why you refuse, time and time again to speak to the 9th Amendment, as well as
Section 27 of your own state constitution, both of which make perfectly clear that a right need not be listed by constitution in order for it to be a
right. That you continue to avoid speaking to that shows your intellectual dishonesty in a way that is unforgivable for one who is running for
office.

Further, your pithy remark that the Constitution protects a person's right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness, would be appropriate
for welfare programs, such as the health care bill you are most likely for, but it has nothing to do with a persons right to drive. It is simply
moronic to suggest that the state has a right to impose driver licensing schemes on a person because that state doesn't have the responsibility to
guarantee happiness. Drivers licenses do not protect a persons right to pursue happiness, and indeed, can impede that pursuit.

I don't believe for a second you are a stupid person, so your twisted reasoning is indicative of something far worse, and this makes you a dangerous
man, clearly looking to rule over other people instead of respect their rights. This is your most egregious failure.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.